Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

Federal stimulus package isn't what America needs

The U.S. Senate took action March 25 on an enormous financial relief package to flood the economy with capital and help Americans with expenses due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The upper chamber calculated an amount per individual or couple based on taxpayers’ adjusted gross income for 2018. Aid is phased out at income thresholds beginning at $75,000 for individuals.

Though necessary to revive businesses and households, the largest rescue package in American history seems an exercise in jumping through federal government hoops to obtain a questionable result.

Democrats, meanwhile, thwarted the legislation for three extra days, appearing more concerned with attaching strings and complaining about “workers over shareholders.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s initial House bill was so rushed that it needed nearly 100 pages of corrections and arguably would accelerate small business layoffs.

Using political leverage to stall an urgent emergency package amid an unprecedented crisis is reckless ideological politics at its worst.

The most straightforward objection to the multi-trillion dollar Senate bill is not about “corporations,” but why base everything on 2018 AGI? Two years ago, many people’s lives were different. You may have sold a business, bought a house or married since. There is no good rationale in going back two years to test incomes.

The people who most need help to financially survive the current panic lack income because their jobs disappeared this month.

Swift action was rightly taken to blunt the overall economic impact. Liquidity needed to be injected. Hospitals are desperate for help. Folks require money for groceries, mortgages and perhaps some business proprietors can pay their remaining employees instead of shutting down. A teacher or an accountant still receiving their same salary every fortnight, however, does not need money as rapidly.

And if someone who receives a stimulus check is not in financial despair, I have faith they can figure out where to donate the money without government edicts.

Two of the most impressive senators in recent weeks were Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse. Both men offer realistic, responsible solutions.

Rubio, chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, told CNBC he wants to use a network of lenders for an existing program to help small businesses and employees. Working with the Treasury Secretary, he hopes to “figure out the most effective way to get cash into the hands of small businesses so that they can maintain payroll for at least a six-week period.”

The Florida Republican sponsored legislation to match President Trump’s call for $50 billion in loans from the Small Business Administration.

Sasse, the only senator who lives his life outside the Washington bubble and has authored two recent books on related topics, gave a stellar St. Patrick’s Day speech on the Senate floor. Everyone should watch his non-partisan words on YouTube.

The Nebraska Republican prefers letting governors direct spending instead of Washington-driven bailouts akin to “shoveling money out of a helicopter.” He called for most economic relief spending to be administered by state governors. He claims governors know how to target money more efficiently than U.S. senators.

Sasse says we can’t mindlessly go down the same path spending people’s money. A dozen years ago, for example, President Obama tossed trillions into supposedly shovel-ready projects; many still can't be found today.

“We can give our states and our governors the lead in making sure that the majority of the money, the majority of the resources get where they're most needed. We can help families and businesses keep afloat during this storm by admitting that 50 laboratories of democracy are going to be more effective than a rifle shot approach from Washington.”

The senator is sentient and correct. Governors know their people, what their workforce needs, how to target money and how to build public-private partnerships. Minnesota is not California. Nebraska is not New York. Every state has unique needs that others may not. Polls show the least popular governors in America are still more popular than almost any DC-based senator. There’s probably a reason.

No company or person has an innate right to public money, no matter how severe a crisis. While state and local governments aren’t miracle workers, they have the capacity to restore livelihoods to their prior economic standing better and with more alacrity than Washington.